Estimated medical cost reductions associated with use of novel oral anticoagulants vs warfarin in a real-world non-valvular atrial fibrillation patient population

Objective:

Results of randomized clinical trials (RCT) demonstrate that novel oral anticoagulants (NOAC) are effective therapies for reducing the risk of stroke in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Prior medical cost avoidance studies have used warfarin event rates from RCTs, which may differ from patients receiving treatment in a real-world (RW) setting, where the quality of care may not be the same as in a RCT. The purpose of this study was to estimate the change in medical costs related to stroke and major bleeding for each NOAC (apixaban, dabigatran, and rivoraxaban) relative to warfarin in a RW NVAF population.

Methods:

Patients (n?=?23,525) with a diagnosis of NVAF during 2007–2010 were selected from a Medco population of US health plans. Stroke and major bleeding excluding intracranial hemorrhage (MBEIH) events were identified using diagnosis codes on medical claims. RW reference event rates were calculated during periods of warfarin exposure. RW event rates for NOACs were estimated by multiplying the corresponding relative risk (RR) from the RCTs by each reference rate. Absolute risk reductions (ARR) or number of events avoided per patient year were then estimated. Changes in medical costs associated with each NOAC were calculated by applying the ARR to the 1-year cost for each event. Costs for stroke and MBEIH were obtained from the literature. Drug and international normalized ratio monitoring costs were not considered in this analysis.

Results:

Compared to RW warfarin, use of apixaban and dabigatran resulted in total (stroke plus MBEIH) medical cost reductions of $1245 and $555, respectively, during a patient year. Rivaroxaban resulted in a medical cost increase of $144.

Conclusions:

If relative risk reductions demonstrated in RCTs persist in a RW setting, apixaban would confer the greatest medical cost savings vs warfarin, resulting from significantly lower rates of both stroke and MBEIH.     

Medical costs in the US of clinical events associated with oral anticoagulant (OAC) use compared to warfarin among non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients ≥75 and <75 years of age,based on the ARISTOTLE,RE-LY,and ROCKET-AF trials

Abstract

Objectives:

Based on clinical trials the oral anticoagulants (OACs) apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban are efficacious for reducing stroke risk for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients. Based on the clinical trials, this study evaluated the medical costs for clinical events among NVAF patients ≥75 and <75 years of age treated with individual OACs vs warfarin.

Methods:

Rates for primary and secondary efficacy and safety outcomes (i.e., clinical events) among NVAF patients receiving warfarin or each of the OACs were determined for NVAF populations aged ≥75 years and <75 years of age from the OAC vs warfarin trials. One-year incremental costs among patients with clinical events were obtained from published literature and inflation adjusted to 2010 costs. Medical costs, excluding medication costs, for clinical events associated with each OAC and warfarin were then estimated and compared.

Results:

Among NVAF patients aged ≥75, compared to warfarin, use of either apixaban or rivaroxaban was associated with a reduction in medical costs per patient year (apixaban?=??$825, rivaroxaban?=?$23), while dabigatran use was associated with increased medical costs of $180 per patient year. Among NVAF patients <75 years of age medical costs per patient year were estimated to be reduced ?$254, ?$367, and ?$88, for apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban, respectively, in comparison to warfarin.

Limitations:

This economic analysis was based on clinical trial data and, therefore, the direct application of the results to routine clinical practice will require further assessment.

Conclusions:

Difference in medical costs between OAC and warfarin treated NVAF patients vary by age group and individual OACs. Although reductions in medical costs for NVAF patients aged ≥75 and <75 were observed for those using either apixaban or rivaroxaban vs warfarin, the reductions were greater per patient year for both the older and younger NVAF populations using apixaban.     

Medical cost reductions associated with the usage of novel oral anticoagulants vs warfarin among atrial fibrillation patients,based on the RE-LY,ROCKET-AF,and ARISTOTLE trials

Abstract

Objective:

The randomized clinical trials, RE-LY, ROCKET-AF, and ARISTOTLE, demonstrate that the novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are effective options for stroke prevention among non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. This study aimed to evaluate the medical cost reductions associated with the use of individual NOACs instead of warfarin from the US payer perspective.

Methods:

Rates for efficacy and safety clinical events for warfarin were estimated as the weighted averages from the RE-LY, ROCKET-AF and ARISTOTLE trials, and event rates for NOACs were determined by applying trial hazard ratios or relative risk ratios to such weighted averages. Incremental medical costs to a US health payer of an AF patient experiencing a clinical event during 1 year following the event were obtained from published literature and inflation adjusted to 2010 cost levels. Medical costs, excluding drug costs, were evaluated and compared for each NOAC vs warfarin. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine the influence of variations in clinical event rates and incremental costs on the medical cost reduction.

Results:

In a patient year, the medical cost reduction associated with NOAC usage instead of warfarin was estimated to be ?$179, ?$89, and ?$485 for dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, respectively. When clinical event rates and costs were allowed to vary simultaneously, through a Monte Carlo simulation, the 95% confidence interval of annual medical costs differences ranged between ?$424 and +$71 for dabigatran, ?$301 and +$135 for rivaroxaban, and ?$741 and ?$252 for apixaban, with a negative number indicating a cost reduction. Of the 10,000 Monte-Carlo iterations 92.6%, 79.8%, and 100.0% were associated with a medical cost reduction >$0 for dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, respectively.

Conclusions:

Usage of the NOACs, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban may be associated with lower medical (excluding drug costs) costs relative to warfarin, with apixaban having the most substantial medical cost reduction.     

Stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation in France: comparative cost-effectiveness of new oral anticoagulants (apixaban,dabigatran, and rivaroxaban), warfarin,and aspirin

Objectives:

To conduct an economic evaluation of the currently prescribed treatments for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) including warfarin, aspirin, and novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) from a French payer perspective.

Methods:

A previously published Markov model was adapted in accordance to the new French guidelines of the Commission for Economic Evaluation and Public Health (CEESP), to adopt the recommended efficiency frontier approach. A cohort of patients with NVAF eligible for stroke preventive treatment was simulated over lifetime. Clinical events modeled included strokes, systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage, other major bleeds, clinically relevant non-major bleeds, and myocardial infarction. Efficacy and bleeding data for warfarin, apixaban, and aspirin were obtained from ARISTOTLE and AVERROES trials, whilst efficacy data for other NOACs were from published indirect comparisons. Acute medical costs were obtained from a dedicated analysis of the French national hospitalization database (PMSI). Long-term medical costs and utility data were derived from the literature. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model projections.

Results:

Warfarin and apixaban were the two optimal treatment choices, as the other five treatment strategies including aspirin, dabigatran 110?mg, dabigatran in sequential dosages, dabigatran 150?mg, and rivaroxaban were strictly dominated on the efficiency frontier. Further, apixaban was a cost-effective alternative vs warfarin with an incremental cost of €2314 and an incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of 0.189, corresponding to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €12,227/QALY.

Conclusions:

Apixaban may be the most economically efficient alternative to warfarin in NVAF patients eligible for stroke prevention in France. All other strategies were dominated, yielding apixaban as a less costly yet more effective treatment alternative. As formally requested by the CEESP, these results need to be verified in a French clinical setting using stroke reduction and bleeding safety observed in real-life patient cohorts using these anticoagulants.     

Major bleeding risk and healthcare economic outcomes of non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients newly-initiated with oral anticoagulant therapy in the real-world setting

Aims: This study compared the risk for major bleeding (MB) and healthcare economic outcomes of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) after initiating treatment with apixaban vs rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or warfarin.

Methods: NVAF patients who initiated apixaban, rivaroxaban, dabigatran, or warfarin were identified from the IMS Pharmetrics Plus database (January 1, 2013–September 30, 2015). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance differences in patient characteristics between study cohorts: patients treated with apixaban vs rivaroxaban, apixaban vs dabigatran, and apixaban vs warfarin. Risk of hospitalization and healthcare costs (all-cause and MB-related) were compared between matched cohorts during the follow-up.

Results: During the follow-up, risks for all-cause (hazard ratio [HR]?=?1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]?=?1.2–1.7) and MB-related (HR?=?1.57, 95% CI?=?1.0–2.4) hospitalizations were significantly greater for patients treated with rivaroxaban vs apixaban. Adjusted total all-cause healthcare costs were significantly lower for patients treated with apixaban vs rivaroxaban ($3,950 vs $4,333 per patient per month [PPPM], p?=?.002) and MB-related medical costs were not statistically significantly different ($100 vs $233 PPPM, p?=?.096). Risk for all-cause hospitalization (HR?=?1.98, 95% CI?=?1.6–2.4) was significantly greater for patients treated with dabigatran vs apixaban, although total all-cause healthcare costs were not statistically different. Risks for all-cause (HR?=?2.22, 95% CI?=?1.9–2.5) and MB-related (HR?=?2.05, 95% CI?=?1.4–3.0) hospitalizations were significantly greater for patients treated with warfarin vs apixaban. Total all-cause healthcare costs ($3,919 vs $4,177 PPPM, p?=?.025) and MB-related medical costs ($96 vs $212 PPPM, p?=?.026) were significantly lower for patients treated with apixaban vs warfarin.

Limitations: This retrospective database analysis does not establish causation.

Conclusions: In the real-world setting, compared with rivaroxaban and warfarin, apixaban is associated with reduced risk of hospitalization and lower healthcare costs. Compared with dabigatran, apixaban is associated with lower risk of hospitalizations.     

Comparison of hospital length of stay and hospitalization costs among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation treated with apixaban or warfarin: An early view

Objective: To quantify and compare hospital length of stay (LOS) and costs between hospitalized non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients treated with either apixaban or warfarin via a large claims database.

Methods: Adult patients hospitalized with AF were selected from the Premier Perspective Claims Database (01JAN2013-31MARCH2014). Patients with evidence of valvular heart disease, valve replacement procedures, or pregnancy during the index hospitalization were excluded. Patients treated with apixaban or warfarin during hospitalization were identified. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to control for baseline imbalances between patients treated with apixaban or warfarin. Primary outcomes were hospital LOS (days), post-medication administration LOS, and index hospitalization costs, and were compared using paired t-tests in the matched sample.

Results: Before PSM, 2894 apixaban and 124,174 warfarin patients were identified. Patients treated with warfarin were older and sicker compared to those treated with apixaban. After applying PSM, a total of 2886 patients were included in each cohort, and baseline characteristics were balanced. The mean (standard deviation [SD] and median) hospital LOS was significantly (p?=?0.002) shorter for patients treated with apixaban for 5.1 days (5.7 and 3) compared to warfarin for 5.5 days (4.8 and 4). The trend appeared consistent in the hospital LOS from point of apixaban or warfarin administration to discharge (4.5 vs 4.7 days, p?=?0.051). Patients administered apixaban incurred significantly lower hospitalization costs compared to those administered warfarin ($11,262 vs $12,883; p?<?0.001).

Conclusions: Among NVAF patients, apixaban treatment was associated with significantly shorter hospital LOS and lower costs when compared to warfarin treatment.     

Real-world comparison of all-cause hospitalizations,hospitalizations due to stroke and major bleeding,and costs for non-valvular atrial fibrillation patients prescribed oral anticoagulants in a US health plan

Aims: To compare the risk of all-cause hospitalization and hospitalizations due to stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding, as well as associated healthcare costs for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) patients initiating apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin.

Materials and methods: NVAF patients initiating apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or warfarin were selected from the OptumInsight Research Database from January 1, 2013–September 30, 2015. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed between apixaban and each oral anticoagulant. Cox models were used to estimate the risk of stroke/SE and major bleeding. Generalized linear and 2-part models were used to compare healthcare costs.

Results: Of the 47,634 eligible patients, 8,328 warfarin-apixaban pairs, 3,557 dabigatran-apixaban pairs, and 8,440 rivaroxaban-apixaban pairs were matched. Compared to apixaban, warfarin patients were associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause (hazard ratio [HR]?=?1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]?=?1.21–1.40) as well as stroke/SE-related (HR?=?1.60; 95% CI?=?1.23–2.07) and major bleeding-related (HR?=?1.95; 95% CI?=?1.60–2.39) hospitalization; rivaroxaban patients were associated with a higher risk of all-cause (HR?=?1.15; 95% CI?=?1.07–1.24) and major bleeding-related hospitalization (HR?=?1.71; 95% CI?=?1.39–2.10); and dabigatran patients were associated with a higher risk of major bleeding hospitalization (HR?=?1.46, 95% CI?=?1.02–2.10). Warfarin patients had significantly higher major bleeding-related and total all-cause healthcare costs compared to apixaban patients. Rivaroxaban patients had significantly higher major bleeding-related costs compared to apixaban patients. No significant results were found for the remaining comparisons.

Limitations: No causal relationships can be concluded, and unobserved confounders may exist in this retrospective database analysis.

Conclusions: This study demonstrated a significantly higher risk of hospitalization (all-cause, stroke/SE, and major bleeding) associated with warfarin, a significantly higher risk of major bleeding hospitalization associated with dabigatran or rivaroxaban, and a significantly higher risk of all-cause hospitalization associated with rivaroxaban compared to apixaban. Lower major bleeding-related costs were observed for apixaban patients compared to warfarin and rivaroxaban patients.     

Evaluation of medical costs associated with use of new oral anticoagulants compared with standard therapy among venous thromboembolism patients

Objective:

This study evaluated differences in medical costs associated with clinical end-points from randomized clinical trials that compared the new oral anticoagulants (NOACs), dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, to standard therapy for treatment of patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE).

Research design and methods:

Event rates of efficacy and safety end-points from the clinical trials (RE-COVER, RE-COVER II, EINSTEIN-Pooled, AMPLIFY, Hokusai-VTE trial) were obtained from published literature. Incremental annual medical costs among patients with clinical events from a US payer perspective were obtained from the literature or healthcare claims databases and inflation adjusted to 2013 costs. Differences in total medical costs associated with clinical end-points for the NOACs vs standard therapy were then estimated. One-way and Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses were carried out.

Results:

A lower rate of major bleedings was associated with use of any of the NOACs vs standard therapy. Except for dabigatran, use of NOACs was also associated with a lower rate of recurrent VTE/death. As a result of the reduction in clinical event rates, the overall medical cost differences were ?$146, ?$482, ?$918, and ?$344 for VTE patients treated with dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, respectively, vs patients treated with standard therapy.

Conclusions:

When any of the four NOACs are used instead of standard therapy for acute VTE, treatment medical costs are reduced. Apixaban is associated with the greatest reduction in medical costs, which is driven by medical cost reductions associated with both efficacy and safety end-points. Further evaluation may be needed to validate these results in the real-world setting.     

The cost of warfarin treatment for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Russia from a collective perspective

Aims: Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) are used for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), but necessitate regular monitoring of prothrombin time via international normalized ratio (INR) testing. This study explores the economic burden of VKA therapy for Russian patients with NVAF.

Method: Cardiologists provided clinical characteristics and healthcare resource use data relating to the patient’s first year of treatment. Data were used to quantify direct medical costs (INR testing, consultations, drug costs). The same patients completed a questionnaire providing data on direct non-medical costs (travel/expenses for attendance at VKA appointments) and indirect costs (opportunity cost and reduced work productivity). Mean costs per patient per year are described (US dollars).

Results: Cardiologists (n?=?50) provided data on 400 patients (mean age?=?63, 47% female), and 351 patients (88%) completed the patient questionnaire. Patients had a mean of nine INR tests. Estimated direct medical costs totaled $151.06, and 18.5% of direct medical costs were attributable to drug costs. Estimated annual direct non-medical costs were $22.89 per patient, and indirect costs were $275.59 per patient.

Limitations: Included patients had been treated for 12–24 months, so are not fully representative of the broader treatment population.

Conclusion: Although VKA drugs costs are relatively low, regular INR testing and consultations drive the economic burden for Russian NVAF patients treated with VKA.     

The cost of warfarin treatment for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Mexico from a collective perspective

Aims: To describe the collective costs of vitamin K antagonist (VKA) treatment for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). VKA drug costs are relatively low, but they necessitate frequent international normalized ratio (INR) monitoring. There are currently minimal data describing the economic impact of this in Mexico.

Materials and methods: Cardiologists provided data on their NVAF patients (n?=?400) to quantify direct medical costs (INR testing, appointments, drug costs). A sub-set of patients (n?=?301) completed a patient questionnaire providing data to calculate direct non-medical costs (travel and other expenses for attendance at VKA-associated appointments) and indirect costs (opportunity cost and reduced work productivity associated with VKA treatment).

Results: Estimated annual direct medical costs totaled $753.6 per patient. Annual direct non-medical and indirect costs were USD$149.8 and $132.1, respectively.

Limitations: Recruited patients were those who consulted with a cardiologist during the study period and selected due to inclusion criteria. All had received uninterrupted treatment for 12–24 months. Consequently, the results are not fully generalizable to all VKA treated NVAF patients.

Conclusions: The true cost of VKA treatment cannot be appreciated by a consideration of drug costs alone. Ongoing monitoring appointments incur additional expenses for both patients and the healthcare system.     

Healthcare costs of stroke and major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants

Objective: To assess long-term healthcare costs related to ischemic stroke and systemic embolism (stroke/SE) and major bleeding (MB) events in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) treated with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs).

Materials and methods: Optum’s Clinformatics Data Mart database from 1/2009–12/2016 was analyzed. Adult patients with ≥1 stroke/SE hospitalization (index date) were matched 1:1 to patients without stroke/SE (random index date), based on propensity scores. Patients with an MB event were matched to patients without MB. All patients had an NOAC dispensing overlapping index date, ≥12?months of eligibility pre-index date, and ≥1 NVAF diagnosis. The observation period spanned from the index date until the earliest date of death, switch to warfarin, end of insurance coverage, or end of data availability. Mean costs were evaluated: (1) per-patient-per-year (PPPY) and (2) at 1, 2, 3, and 4?years using Lin's method.

Results: The cost differences were, respectively, $48,807 and $28,298 PPPY for NOAC users with stroke/SE (n?=?1,340) and those with MB (n?=?3,774) events compared to controls. Cost differences of patients with vs without stroke/SE were $49,876, $51,627, $57,822, and $60,691 at 1, 2, 3, and 4?years post-index, respectively (p?p?Limitations: Limitations include unobserved confounders, coding and/or billing inaccuracies, limited sample sizes over longer follow-up, and the under-reporting of mortality for deaths occurring after 2011.

Conclusions: The incremental healthcare costs incurred by patients with vs without stroke/SE was nearly twice as high as those of patients with vs without MB. Moreover, each additional year up to 4?years after the first event was associated with an incremental cost for patients with a stroke/SE or MB event compared to those without an event.     

Comparison of differences in medical costs when new oral anticoagulants are used for the treatment of patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism vs warfarin or placebo in the US

Abstract

Objective:

Medical costs that may be avoided when any of the four new oral anticoagulants (NOACs), dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, are used instead of warfarin for the treatment of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) were estimated and compared. Additionally, the overall differences in medical costs were estimated for NVAF and venous thromboembolism (VTE) patient populations combined.     

Clinical and economic benefits of extended treatment with apixaban for the treatment and prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism in Canada

Background and objective Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated with long-term clinical and economic burden. Clinical guidelines generally recommend at least 3 months of anticoagulation, but, in clinical practice, concerns over bleeding risk often limit extended treatment. Apixaban was studied for extended VTE treatment in the AMPLIFY-EXT trial, demonstrating superiority to placebo in VTE reduction without increasing risk of major bleeding. This study assessed the long-term clinical and economic benefits of extending treatment with apixaban when clinical equipoise exists compared to standard of care with enoxaparin/warfarin and other novel oral anti-coagulants (NOACs) for the treatment and prevention of recurrent VTE in Canada.

Methods A Markov model was developed to follow patients with VTE over their lifetimes. Efficacy and safety for apixaban and enoxaparin/warfarin were based on AMPLIFY and AMPLIFY-EXT, while relative efficacy to other NOACs was synthesized by network meta-analysis (NMA). Dosages for NOACs and enoxaparin/warfarin were based on their respective trials and were given up to 18 months and up to 6 months, followed by no treatment, respectively. Patient quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were based on published studies, and costs for resource utilization were from a Ministry of Health perspective, expressed as 2014 CAD ($).

Results Extended treatment with apixaban compared to enoxaparin/warfarin resulted in fewer recurrent VTEs, VTE-related deaths, and bleeding events, but at slightly increased cost. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $4828 per QALY gained. Compared to other NOACs, apixaban had the fewest bleeding events, similar recurrent VTE events, and the lowest overall cost, which was driven by the strong bleeding profile. In scenario analyses of acute and lifetime treatments, apixaban was cost-effective against all strategies.

Conclusions Extended treatment with apixaban can offer substantial clinical benefits and is a cost-effective alternative to enoxaparin/warfarin and other NOACs.     

Costs of hospital visits among patients with deep vein thrombosis treated with rivaroxaban and LMWH/warfarin

Background:

For many years, the standard of care for patients diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis (DVT) has been low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) bridging to an oral Vitamin-K antagonist (VKA). The availability of new non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOAC) agents as monotherapy may reduce the likelihood of hospitalization for DVT patients.

Objective:

To compare hospital visit costs of DVT patients treated with rivaroxaban and LMWH/warfarin.

Methods:

A retrospective claim analysis was conducted using the MarketScan Hospital Drug Database for care provided between January 2011 and December 2013. Adult patients using rivaroxaban or LMWH/warfarin with a primary diagnosis of DVT during the first day of a hospital visit were identified (i.e., index hospital visit). Based on propensity-score methods, historical LMWH/warfarin patients (i.e., patients who received LMWH/warfarin before the approval of rivaroxaban) were matched 4:1 to rivaroxaban patients. The hospital-visit cost difference between these groups was evaluated for the index hospital visit, as well as for total hospital-visit costs (i.e., including index and subsequent hospital visit costs).

Results:

All rivaroxaban users (n?=?134) in the database were well-matched with four LMWH/warfarin users (n?=?536). The mean hospital-visit costs were $5257 for the rivaroxaban cohort and $6764 in the matched-cohort of patients using LMWH/warfarin. The $1508 cost difference was statistically significant between cohorts (95% CI?=?[?$2296; ?$580]; p-value?=?0.002). Total hospital-visit costs were lower for rivaroxaban compared to LMWH/warfarin users within 1, 2, 3, and 6 months after index visit (significantly lower within 1 and 3 months, p-values <0.05)

Limitations:

Limitations were inherent to administrative-claims data, completeness of baseline characteristics, adjustments restricted to observational factors, and lastly the sample size of the rivaroxaban cohort.

Conclusion:

The availability of rivaroxaban significantly reduced the costs of hospital visits in patients with DVT treated with rivaroxaban compared to LMWH/warfarin.     

Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous closure of a patent foramen ovale compared with medical management in patients with a cryptogenic stroke: from the US payer perspective

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure, from a US payer perspective. Lower rates of recurrent ischemic stroke have been documented following percutaneous PFO closure in properly selected patients. Stroke in patients aged <60?years is particularly interesting because this population is typically at peak economic productivity and vulnerable to prolonged disability.

Materials and methods: A Markov model comprising six health states (Stable after index stroke, Transient ischemic attack, Post-Transient Ischemic Attack, Clinical ischemic stroke, Post-clinical ischemic stroke, and Death) was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PFO closure in combination with medical management versus medical management alone. The base-case model employed a 5-year time-horizon, with transition probabilities, clinical inputs, costs, and utility values ascertained from published and national costing sources. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was evaluated per US guidelines, utilizing a discount rate of 3.0%.

Results: At 5?years, overall costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) obtained from PFO closure compared with medical management were $16,323 vs $7,670 and 4.18 vs 3.77, respectively. At 5?years, PFO closure achieved an ICER of $21,049, beneficially lower than the conventional threshold of $50,000. PFO closure reached cost-effectiveness at 2.3?years (ICER = $47,145). Applying discount rates of 0% and 6% had a negligible impact on base-case model findings. Furthermore, PFO closure was 95.4% likely to be cost-effective, with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 and a 5-year time horizon.

Limitations: From a cost perspective, our economic model employed a US patient sub-population, so cost data may not extrapolate to other non-US stroke populations.

Conclusion: Percutaneous PFO closure plus medical management represents a cost-effective approach for lowering the risk of recurrent stroke compared with medical management alone.     

One-year follow-up healthcare costs of patients hospitalized for transient ischemic attack or ischemic stroke and discharged with aspirin plus extended-release dipyridamole or clopidogrel

Abstract

Objective:

To examine healthcare costs among patients hospitalized for transient ischemic attack or ischemic stroke (TIA/stroke) and prescribed aspirin plus extended-release dipyridamole (ASA-ERDP) or clopidogrel (CLOPID) within 30 days post-discharge using a retrospective claims database from a large US managed care organization.

Methods:

Adult patients with ≥1 hospitalizations for TIA/stroke between January 2007–July 2009 and ≥1 claims for an oral anti-platelet (OAP) were observed for 1 year before and after the first TIA/stroke hospitalization or until death, whichever came first. Cohorts were defined by the first claim for ASA-ERDP or CLOPID within 30 days post-discharge. A generalized linear model, adjusting for demographics, baseline comorbidities and costs, compared total follow-up costs (medical?+?pharmacy) between ASA-ERDP and CLOPID patients.

Results:

Of 6377 patients (2085 ASA-ERDP; 4292 CLOPID) who met the selection criteria, mean (SD) age was 69 (13) years and 50% were male. Unadjusted mean total follow-up costs were lower for ASA-ERDP than CLOPID ($26,201 vs $30,349; p?=?0.002), of which average unadjusted medical and pharmacy costs were $22,094 vs $26,062 (p?=?0.003) and $4107 vs $4288 (p?=?0.119), respectively. Multivariate modeling indicated that the following were associated with higher total costs (all p?<?0.05): higher baseline Quan-Charlson comorbidity score, history of atrial fibrillation and myocardial infarction, index stroke hospitalization, death post-discharge, and index CLOPID use. Adjusted mean total follow-up costs for CLOPID were 9% higher than ASA-ERDP (cost ratio: 1.09; p?=?0.038).

Conclusion:

In this study, compared to CLOPID patients, ASA-ERDP patients were observed to have lower total costs 1 year post-discharge TIA/stroke hospitalization, driven primarily by lower medical costs. Further research into the real-world impact of OAP therapies on clinical and economic outcomes of patients with stroke/TIA is warranted. The findings of this study should be considered within the limitations of an administrative claims analysis, as claims data are collected for the purpose of payment.     

Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus warfarin for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation in the Japanese healthcare setting

Abstract

Aims: This article aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban in comparison to warfarin for stroke prevention in Japanese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), from a public healthcare payer’s perspective.

Materials and methods: Baseline event risks were obtained from the J-ROCKET AF trial and the treatment effect data were taken from a network meta-analysis. The other model inputs were extracted from the literature and official Japanese sources. The outcomes included the number of ischaemic strokes, myocardial infarctions, systemic embolisms and bleedings avoided, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The scenario analysis considered treatment effect data from the same network meta-analysis.

Results: In comparison with warfarin, rivaroxaban was estimated to avoid 0.284 ischaemic strokes per patient, to increase the number of QALYs by 0.535 per patient and to decrease the total costs by ¥118,892 (€1,011.11) per patient (1 JPY = 0.00850638 EUR; XE.com, 7 October 2019). Consequently, rivaroxaban treatment was found to be dominant compared to warfarin. In the scenario analysis, the ICER of rivaroxaban versus warfarin was ¥2,873,499 (€24,446.42) per QALY.

Limitations: The various sources of data used resulted in the heterogeneity of the cost-effectiveness analysis results. Although, rivaroxaban was cost-effective in the majority of cases.

Conclusion: Rivaroxaban is cost-effective against warfarin for stroke prevention in Japanese patients with NVAF, giving the payer WTP of 5,000,000 JPY.     

Healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with venous thromboembolism in cancer patients treated with anticoagulants

Abstract

Objective: The standard of care for cancer-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) has been low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), but oral anticoagulants are also widely prescribed. This study compared VTE-related healthcare resource utilization and costs of cancer patients treated with anticoagulants.

Methods: Claims data from Humana Database (January 1, 2013–May 31, 2015) were analyzed. Based on the first anticoagulant received, patients were classified into LMWH, warfarin, or rivaroxaban cohorts. Characteristics were evaluated during the 6 months pre-index date (i.e. the first VTE); VTE-related resource utilization and costs were evaluated during follow-up. Cohorts were compared using rate ratios, and p-values and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Healthcare costs were evaluated per-patient-per-year (PPPY) and compared using mean cost differences.

Results: A total of 2,428 patients (LMWH: n?=?660; warfarin: n?=?1,061; rivaroxaban: n?=?707) were included. Compared to patients treated with LMWH, patients treated with rivaroxaban had significantly fewer VTE-related hospitalizations, hospitalization days, and emergency room and outpatient visits, resulting in an increase of $12,000 VTE-related healthcare costs PPPY with LMWH vs rivaroxaban. Patients treated with rivaroxaban had significantly lower VTE-related resource utilization compared to patients treated with warfarin; however, VTE-related costs were similar between cohorts. The higher drug costs ($1,519) were offset by significantly lower outpatient (?$1,039) and hospitalization costs (?$522) in rivaroxaban relative to the warfarin cohort.

Conclusions: Healthcare resource use and costs associated with VTE treatment in cancer patients are highest with LMWH relative to warfarin and rivaroxaban.     

Productivity cost model of the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with abatacept

Background: The cost of the biological drug abatacept may be partly offset by reductions in the cost of productivity losses due to employee absences and reduced effectiveness at work because of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods: This was a 1-year productivity cost model based on epidemiologic and economic data. The setting was private industry in the US and the primary outcome measure was the difference in the costs of lost productivity and drug treatment with and without abatacept (‘cost difference’).

Results: The lost productivity cost of RA for a firm of 10,000 was $1.69 million, largely due to the cost of RA-related absenteeism ($1.55 million) rather than to worker displacement ($0.12 million) or care-giving for spouses with RA ($0.02 million). In the base case analysis (excluding presenteeism), 37% of the acquisition cost of abatacept was offset by reductions in the cost of RA-related productivity losses. In some industry groups (Utilities and Finance), and in models that included presenteeism, reductions in lost productivity costs exceeded the abatacept cost.

Conclusions: Much of the acquisition cost of abatacept may be offset by reductions in the cost of productivity losses due to RA. Abatacept treatment could be cost saving in some industry groups.